When Fit Is Fundamental: Performance Evaluations and Promotions of
Upper-Level Female and Male Managers
Karen S. Lyness
Baruch College, City University of New York
Madeline E. Heilman
New York University
Using archival organizational data, the authors examined relationships of gender and type of position
(i.e., line or staff) to performance evaluations of 448 upper-level managers, and relationships of
performance evaluations to promotions during the subsequent 2 years. Consistent with the idea that there
is a greater perceived lack of fit between stereotypical attributes of women and requirements of line jobs
than staff jobs, women in line jobs received lower performance ratings than women in staff jobs or men
in either line or staff jobs. Moreover, promoted women had received higher performance ratings than
promoted men and performance ratings were more strongly related to promotions for women than men,
suggesting that women were held to stricter standards for promotion.
Keywords: gender bias, gender stereotypes, performance appraisal, promotion, glass ceiling
Although their presence in the management ranks is increasing,
women continue to be underrepresented in senior management at
many large private-sector companies (Lyness, 2002; Powell,
1999). One possible explanation is that there are gender differences
in performance evaluations, and how women managers'
performance is evaluated relative to men's performance influences
women's subsequent career success. Yet, relatively little is known
about whether or when performance evaluations of women in
upper-level management jobs differ from those of their male
counterparts, or if female managers' performance ratings differ
depending on the types of jobs they hold. Moreover, it is not clear
from prior research how performance evaluations are related to the
actual career progress of men and women managers. The present
study addresses these issues.
Performance Evaluations
The perceived lack of person­job fit has been used to explain
the occurrence of gender bias against women in organizational
decisions about managers including performance evaluations. That
is, the perceived incongruity between stereotypically based attributes
ascribed to women (e.g., kind, caring, and relationshiporiented)
and the attributes ascribed to men (e.g., tough, forceful,
and achievement-oriented) believed to be necessary for success at
male gender-typed jobs, is thought to give rise to expectations that
women will perform poorly in these positions, and the greater the
perceived lack of fit, the more negative the expectations (Heilman,
1983, 1995, 2001). The lack-of-fit model further asserts that these
expectations play a key role in evaluative processes because there
is a tendency to perpetuate and confirm them. These expectations
become the lens through which information is filtered, including
what behavior is attended to, how that behavior is interpreted, and
whether it is remembered when critical decisions are made. As a
consequence, the negative expectations resulting from perceptions
of lack of fit detrimentally affect how women are regarded and
how their work is evaluated when they are in traditionally male
jobs.
There is empirical evidence to support the lack-of-fit model as
it relates to performance evaluations. A meta-analysis of laboratory
studies indicated that there was greater gender bias against
women in performance ratings on masculine tasks than on feminine
tasks (Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989). Another
meta-analysis that focused on evaluations of leaders indicated that
the devaluation of female leaders was more pronounced for roles
occupied mainly by men than for roles occupied more equally by
both sexes (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992).
Nevertheless, questions can be raised about whether these findings
generalize to field settings and performance evaluations of
managers. As Bartol (1999) has noted, there are relatively few
prior field research studies about gender differences in performance
evaluations, especially for managers, and a review of studies
that have been done indicates that their results have been
inconsistent. Moreover, because the prior field studies that have
examined gender differences in managers' performance ratings
either have been conducted in government settings (e.g., Powell &
Butterfield, 1994) or have used self-reported ratings or ratings
collected exclusively for research purposes for their analyses (e.g.,
Cannings & Montmarquette, 1991; Tsui & Gutek, 1984), they are
not necessarily informative about gender differences in performance
ratings that occur in business organizations. Therefore, our
first objective for the present study was to test predictions based on
Karen S. Lyness, Department of Psychology, Baruch College, City
University of New York; Madeline E. Heilman, Department of Psychology,
New York University.
We thank Michael Judiesch for his helpful comments about an earlier
version of the paper and Roger Millsap for his suggestions about analyses.
In April 2002, portions of this study were presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto,
Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen S.
Lyness, Department of Psychology, Baruch College, City University of
New York, One Bernard Baruch Way, Box B8-215, New York, NY
10010-5585. E-mail: Karen_Lyness@baruch.cuny.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 91, No. 4, 777­785 0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777
777
lack-of-fit ideas as they relate to actual performance evaluations of
upper-level corporate managers.
Key to understanding the role of lack of fit in the different
evaluations of male and female managers is the gender-typing of
the job of manager. Jobs are thought to become gender-typed as
male or female based on either (a.) job responsibilities that are
believed to be gender-linked (Heilman, 1983, 1995) or (b.) the sex
of the usual job-holder (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Krefting, Berger, &
Wallace, 1978). Managerial jobs, especially at upper levels, have
traditionally been considered to be male gender-typed because the
high levels of organizational authority, responsibility, and status
that are characteristic of these jobs have typically been associated
with men, rather than with women, in our society (e.g., Ragins &
Sundstrom, 1989), thus adding to the manager-as-male image (e.g.,
Schein & Mueller, 1992; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996).
In addition, although women have made progress at moving into
management positions in recent years, gender segregation of organizational
hierarchies persists (Blau, Ferber, & Winkler, 1998;
Jacobs, 1992), with women often concentrated in lower- and
middle-level management positions rather than the more salient
upper-level positions (Lyness, 2002; Powell, 1999). In fact, a
recent study of the highest management levels found that women
held less than 16% of the corporate officer positions in Fortune
500 companies (Catalyst, 2002). The view that managerial jobs are
male gender-typed, first reported over 30 years ago (Schein, 1973,
1975), has persisted over time, with men and managers consistently
being described more similarly than women and managers
(Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Powell, Butterfield, &
Parent, 2002; Schein, 2001).
However, when superiors evaluate managers in actual organizational
settings, we suspect that the category manager will not be
so broadly drawn. According to recent research, people attend
more to detail when they are close up than when they are psychologically
remote from a target (Trope & Liberman, 2003). Therefore,
it is likely that when direct supervisors are conducting performance
evaluations, the global concept of manager will give way
to more fine-grained conceptions. With their extensive knowledge
about organizational job requirements, these superiors are likely to
make distinctions among job definitions and, consequently, in their
perceptions about the degree of male gender-typing for particular
managerial positions.
In the case of upper-level management jobs, we expect that line
positions are likely to be viewed as more strongly male gendertyped
than staff positions. Not only is our reasoning based on the
typical gender proportions of men and women in upper-level line
and staff jobs--as recently as 2002, women corporate officers in
Fortune 500 companies held less than 10% of the line jobs, and
70% of these women held staff jobs (Catalyst, 2002)--but also on
the different work contents and organizational roles of line and
staff jobs. Managers in line jobs direct and control essential organizational
activities, such as producing or selling products or
services, whereas managers in staff jobs provide support and
expertise to line managers (Hellriegel, Jackson, & Slocum, 2002).
Furthermore, managers in line positions typically have greater
organizational power and influence than managers in staff positions
(Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Thus, the responsibilities of
line management jobs appear to be highly consistent with the
forcefulness and achievement orientation associated with men, but
the responsibilities of staff jobs, even at managerial levels, appear
to be less exclusively male in character.
Because line jobs are likely to be viewed as more strongly male
gender-typed than staff jobs, they should give rise to a greater
perceived lack of fit for women than staff jobs. Female managers
in line jobs should therefore be more disadvantaged, receiving
lower performance evaluations, not only when compared to male
managers in line jobs, but also when compared to female managers
in staff jobs. However, we would not anticipate similarly differential
effects for evaluations of men in upper-level line jobs and
staff jobs. Regardless of whether they are line roles or staff roles,
upper-level managerial jobs are considered to be male in gendertype.
Line roles and staff roles cause deviations in the degree of
male gender-typing of a particular position, but they do not cause
a managerial job to be perceived as female. As a result, there is
always a fit between perceptions of male managers' attributes and
perceived requirements of their jobs, and we do not expect that
male managers' performance evaluations will differ depending on
whether they hold line jobs or staff jobs.
Although we are not aware of any published research involving
performance evaluations of women and men managers that has
focused on line and staff jobs, there is a prior field study that
provides some support for our ideas about the relationship of
degree of male gender typing of jobs to performance ratings for
men and women. Pazy and Oron (2001) examined relationships
between gender composition of work groups and performance
ratings of Israeli military officers in noncombat positions, and
found that women's performance ratings varied but men's did not,
depending on the proportion of women in the work unit. Women
received lower performance ratings when they worked in groups
with less than 10% women, and women's average performance
ratings increased as the proportion of women in their work groups
increased. These findings can be interpreted as showing that even
in what the researchers termed "a male­gendered environment,"
(Pazy & Oron, 2001, p. 691) it was possible for jobs to differ in
degree of perceived male gender-typing (as measured by the
proportion of women in the work unit), which was reflected in
women's performance ratings. In addition, Pazy and Oron's finding
that male officers' average performance ratings were not
related to gender composition of their work groups also is consistent
with our contention that male jobs may differ in degree of
perceived male gender-typing and yet still be perceived as congruent
with male attributes.
Thus, based on theory and research about perceived job­gender
incongruity, we predicted that performance ratings for upper-level
managers would be related to the interaction of gender with type of
managerial position (i.e., line or staff). Specifically, we expected
that women in line jobs would receive lower performance ratings
than all other groups:
Hypothesis 1: Female managers in line jobs will be evaluated
more negatively than female managers in staff jobs and than
male managers in both line and staff jobs.
Performance Evaluation and Promotion
The lack-of-fit model also suggests that differing levels of
performance would be required of men and women if they were to
be seen as worthy of a promotion to a male gender-typed position.
778 LYNESS AND HEILMAN
That is, greater evidence of competence is needed to overcome the
negative performance expectations that besiege women (but not
men) in male gender-typed job domains if they are to be judged as
warranting advancement. Foschi's (1992, 1996, 2000) theory
about double standards for competence is also relevant to this
issue. According to Foschi, different standards are used in scrutinizing
equal performance by a man and a woman to make judgments
about competence, with performance by members of lower
status groups (e.g., women) assessed by stricter standards than
similar performance by members of higher status groups (e.g.,
men). Furthermore, double standards are thought to be particularly
likely when the status characteristic (e.g., gender) is perceived to
be relevant to performance, as in the case of male gender-typed
jobs. These ideas suggest that in order to be promoted, women
would have to outperform their male counterparts. Our second
objective for the present study was to test this idea using a
longitudinal design to examine the relationship between performance
ratings and actual promotions received during the subsequent
2 years. We predicted:
Hypothesis 2: Women who have been promoted will have
received higher performance ratings than men who have been
promoted.
These ideas also suggest that men will be given more leeway
when promotion decisions are made. That is, there will be more
flexibility in standards and a greater tendency to give the benefit of
the doubt to men than to women when their performance is not
exemplary. Thus, we also expected that there would be a stronger
relationship between performance evaluations and promotions for
women than for men. Specifically, we predicted:
Hypothesis 3: Promotions will be related to the interaction of
gender with performance ratings, such that performance ratings
will be more strongly related to promotions for women
than for men.
Because we did not have information about the types of subsequent
jobs for which women and men were considered as promotion
candidates, we could not use lack-of-fit principles to make
predictions about job type as a factor in promotion decisions. We
did, however, explore initial job type, that is, line or staff, as a
potential moderator of the effects predicted in Hypotheses 2 and 3.
Method
Participants and Procedures
The sample included 489 upper-middle-level and senior-level managers
from U.S. offices of a large multinational financial services corporation.
Leaders of business units and staff functions evaluated these managers on
nine performance dimensions as part of a succession planning process in
the first quarter of 1998. There were 177 raters whose gender was identifiable,
including 28 women and 149 men. (Rater gender was missing for 52
ratees.) Raters evaluated an average of two managers (M 2.46, mode
1). We computed subsequent promotions by comparing participants' levels
in the management hierarchy on January 1, 1998 to their levels on January
1, 2000. We obtained all data from organizational databases.
Other than rater gender, complete 1998 data were available for 448
managers, and we used this sample to test our predictions. Twenty-two
percent (n 100) of the sample was women, and the sample was rather
evenly divided between line managers (n 225) and staff managers (n
223). As expected, a larger proportion of the men (54%) than the women
(37%) were in line positions, 2
(1, N 448) 9.00, p .01. The average
age of the women was 45 years versus 47 years for the men, t(446)
2.44, p .05, the women averaged about 11 years of organizational
tenure versus about 14 years for the men, t(446) 2.84, p .01, and a
larger proportion of the men (71%) than the women (61%) held graduate
degrees, 2
(1, N 448) 3.60, p .06. Forty-two percent of the women
compared to 65% of the men held senior level management positions, and
the others were in upper-middle-level management positions, 2
(1, N
448) 17.47, p .001. We controlled for these demographic variables
that covaried with gender by using age, organizational tenure, education,
and whether managers were in senior-level management positions as
control variables in the analyses.
Measures
Performance ratings. Managers' performance was rated in 1998 on
nine dimensions developed by the organization: operating results; customer
effectiveness; personal, business, and technical proficiency; execution
skills; leadership; professional standards; relationships; global effectiveness;
and social responsibility. All performance ratings were made on
three-point scales coded from 1 (low) to 3 (high). A confirmatory factor
analysis with EQS for Windows 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 1995) indicated that
a one-factor model provided a good fit for the nine performance dimensions,
2
(27, N 485) 60.0, p .001, 2
/df 2.22, comparative fit
index .96, root mean square error of approximation .05. A one-factor
model is also consistent with recent meta-analytic research indicating that
there is a general factor in ratings of job performance (Viswesvaran,
Schmidt, & Ones, 2005). We created a composite performance scale by
summing the nine dimension scores, and the alpha coefficient for the
composite performance scale was .79.
Job type. Each participanťs position was coded as staff (0) or line (1)
based on information provided by organizational human resource officers.
Examples of line functions included business management, operations
management, and sales; examples of staff functions included human resources,
administration, and external affairs.
Gender. Participant gender was coded female (0) or male (1).
Human capital. Participants' age and organizational tenure were measured
in years, as of January 1, 1998. Education was measured as
highest degree earned, coded graduate degree (1) and bachelor's degree
(0). Thirty-seven participants had complete data except for education
so we repeated our regression analyses without education as a
control variable, using the larger sample (N 485), and reached the
same conclusions.
Organizational level. Participants spanned five levels in the management
hierarchy, coded from low (1) to high (5), with Level 1 considered
upper-middle-level management and Levels 2 through 5 considered seniorlevel
management, according to organizational human resource officers.
For ease of presentation of results, we dichotomized organizational levels
into whether or not participants held senior-level management positions on
January 1, 1998, coded yes (1, n 269) or no (0, n 179). However, we
also repeated our regression analyses with four dummy variables representing
the five management levels (contrasting Levels 2 to 5 with Level
1), and reached the same conclusions about tests of our hypotheses.
Promotions. A promotion was defined as a move to a higher salary
level in the management hierarchy. Promotions were calculated by subtracting
each manager's organizational level (using the five original management
levels) on January 1, 1998 from his or her level on January 1,
2000. Because only 2% of the sample moved up more than one level, we
treated promotion as a dichotomous variable, coded yes (1, n 77) or no
(0, n 371).
779WHEN FIT IS FUNDAMENTAL
Analyses
Preliminary regression analyses indicated that neither the main effect for
rater gender, .02, p .62, nor the interaction between rater gender
and ratee gender, .06, p .67, was significantly related to performance
ratings so we combined the data for all raters in subsequent
analyses. Similarly, a preliminary logistic regression analysis indicated that
neither the main effect for rater gender, b .21, p .60, nor the
interaction between rater gender and ratee gender, b .46, p .58, was
significantly related to promotion decisions so we also combined those data
for all raters.
We tested Hypothesis 1 by carrying out a linear regression analysis with
the nine-dimension composite performance scale as the dependent variable,
and controls for human capital (age, organizational tenure, education, and
organizational level) in Step 1; gender in Step 2 (to see if there was a
significant main effect); job type in Step 3; and the gender by job type
interaction in Step 4. We then conducted three planned orthogonal contrasts,
as suggested by Strube and Bobko (1989) for testing an ordinal
interaction when it is predicted that differences are due to one cell, as in our
case where we predicted that women in line jobs would receive lower
performance ratings than the other three groups. To control for study-wise
error, we set the significance level for each of the three contrasts at
.05/3 .017.
We tested Hypothesis 2 with a linear regression analysis predicting
composite performance ratings, with control variables and the main effects
for job type in Step 1, and gender in Step 2, and we carried out an
exploratory analysis of initial job type as a moderating variable by entering
the gender by initial job type interaction in Step 3. We limited the sample
for these analyses to the 77 managers who had received promotions. For all
regression analyses we used simultaneous entry of all variables within each
step, and significance of the results was determined from the significance
of beta coefficients and change statistics.
Finally, we tested Hypothesis 3 with a logistic regression analysis
because promotion was a dichotomous variable. We entered the previously
used control variables and job type as an additional control variable
(because promotional opportunities might vary in line and staff positions)
in Step 1, gender in Step 2 (to see if there was a significant main effect),
performance rating in Step 3, and the interaction of gender and performance
rating in Step 4. We carried out an exploratory analysis of initial job
type as a moderating variable by entering the additional two-way interactions
in Step 5; and the three-way interaction of gender, performance
ratings, and initial job type in Step 6. We centered the composite performance
ratings in the logistic regression analyses to eliminate unnecessary
multicollinearity between this variable and the interaction term (Cohen,
Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Then we conducted separate logistic regression
analyses for female managers and male managers. Because some
managers left the organization during the 2 years after the performance
evaluations, we conducted all analyses of promotion data first with the
1998 sample (N 448) and then with only managers who were employed
for the entire 2-year period (n 382).
Results
The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the
variables are shown in Table 1. Examination of these results shows
that gender, in and of itself, was not significantly correlated with
either the nine-dimension performance composite (r .01) or
promotion (r .03).
Performance Evaluations
The results of the linear regression analysis testing Hypothesis
1, predicting that the interaction of gender by job type would be
related to composite performance ratings, are presented in Table 2.
Among the control variables, there was a positive relationship of
performance ratings to organizational tenure, .12, p .05.
The main effect for gender was not statistically significant, but we
found a significant main effect for job type (i.e., line or staff),
.34, p .01, indicating that managers in staff positions received
higher ratings than managers in line positions. As we predicted, the
gender by job type interaction was significantly related to performance
ratings, .24, R2
.01, p .05.
Figure 1 depicts the interaction of gender and job type in the
mean composite performance ratings of female and male managers.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, this figure shows that women in
line jobs received the lowest performance ratings of all four
groups.
We conducted a set of three planned orthogonal contrasts to test
our specific prediction that women managers in line jobs would be
rated significantly lower than managers in the other three groups.
The contrasts indicated that (a) performance ratings did not differ
significantly for men in line jobs and men in staff jobs, F(1,
446) 2.57, p .110; (b) performance ratings for women in staff
jobs did not differ significantly from pooled ratings for men in line
jobs and staff jobs, F(1, 446) 2.64, p .105; and (c) performance
ratings for women in line jobs were significantly lower than
pooled ratings for the other three groups, including women in staff
jobs and men in line jobs and staff jobs, F(1, 446) 5.85, p
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Performance rating composite 21.69 2.97 ­
2. Promotiona
0.17 0.38 .16** ­
3. Ageb
46.90 6.71 .03 .12* ­
4. Organizational tenureb
13.49 9.52 .09* .10* .55** ­
5. Educationc
0.69 0.46 .03 .01 .08 .02 ­
6. Senior management levela
0.60 0.49 .08 .14** .30** .19** .01 ­
7. Job typed
0.50 0.50 .13** .06 .15** .03 .07 .03 ­
8. Gendere
0.78 0.42 .01 .03 .11* .12* .09 .20** .14** Note.
N 448.
a
0 no; 1 yes. b
In years. c
0 bachelor's degree; 1 graduate degree. d
0 staff; 1 line. e
0
female; 1 male.
* p .05. ** p .01.
780 LYNESS AND HEILMAN
.016. These findings are therefore supportive of our reasoning that
women in line jobs were more disadvantaged in performance
ratings relative to women in staff jobs and men in both line jobs
and staff jobs.
Performance Evaluation and Promotion
We tested Hypothesis 2, predicting that promoted women would
have received higher performance ratings than promoted men,
using performance rating as the dependent variable and limiting
the analysis to managers who were promoted (n 77). These
results, shown in Table 3, were supportive of our prediction.
Gender was negatively related to performance ratings, indicating
that promoted female managers had higher performance ratings
than promoted male managers, step .26, R2
.06, p .05,
with gender explaining 6% of the variance in these ratings. When
we restricted the sample to the 69 promoted managers who were
employed for the entire 2-year period, we found similar results,
with higher performance ratings among promoted women managers
than promoted men managers, step .29, R2
.07, p
.05. Our additional analyses showed that the gender by initial job
type interactions were not statistically significant with either sample,
indicating that initial job type did not have a moderating
effect.
Figure 2 shows the mean composite performance ratings for
female managers and male managers who were promoted and not
promoted. Promoted women's composite performance ratings averaged
over 1.5 points higher than promoted men's composite
performance ratings (M 23.89 for women, 22.31 for men).
The results of the logistic regression analysis to test Hypothesis
3, predicting that subsequent promotions would be related more
strongly to performance ratings for women than men, are presented
in Table 4. Among the control variables, only senior-level management
had a significant relationship to promotion, indicating that
managers in senior management jobs were less likely to be promoted
than those in lower-level jobs, step b .54, odds ratio
.58, p .05. The main effect for gender was not significant, but (as
would be expected) the main effect for performance ratings was
positively related to promotion, step b 1.60, odds ratio 4.97,
2
(1, N 448) 13.34, p .001. The addition of the interaction
of gender by performance ratings to the model in Step 4 resulted
in a significant improvement to the model, 2
(1, N 448) 3.88,
p .05, according to the likelihood ratio test, supporting our
prediction. Although the Wald test indicated that the beta coeffi-
22.48
20.57
21.94
21.44
20.00
23.00
Staff Line
Job Type
CompositePerformanceRating
Female Managers
Male Managers
Figure 1. Mean composite ratings for female managers and male managers in staff jobs and line jobs are
provided.
Table 2
Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Performance Ratings
with Gender and Job Type
Step Variable Step
Full
model R2
F (df)
1 Age .05 .08
Organizational tenure .11 .12*
Educationa
.03 .03
Senior management
levelb
.08 .09 .02 1.76 (4,443)
2 Genderc
.04 .10 .00 .51 (1,442)
3 Job typed
.14** .34** .02** 8.82 (1,441)
4 Gender by job type1
.24* .24* .01* 4.51 (1,440)
Note. N 448. Entries are standardized beta weights.
a
0 bachelor's degree; 1 graduate degree. b
0 no; 1 yes. c
0
female; 1 male. d
0 staff; 1 line.
 p .10. * p .05. ** p .01.
781WHEN FIT IS FUNDAMENTAL
cient for the interaction term in this step was only marginally
significant, step b 2.28, odds ratio .10, p .07, the
likelihood ratio test for change in model fit (which was statistically
significant) is the preferred test for the impact of an individual
predictor (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). We found even
stronger support for our prediction when we repeated the analyses
with the 382 managers who were employed for the entire 2-year
period. With this sample, addition of the gender-by-performance
ratings interaction resulted in a significant improvement to the
model, 2
(1, N 382) 5.08, p .05, according to the likelihood
ratio test, and the Wald test also indicated that the beta coefficient
for the interaction term was statistically significant, step b .33,
odds ratio .72, p .05. Additional analyses indicated that
neither of the other two-way interactions involving initial job type
nor the three-way interaction of gender, performance rating, and
initial job type was statistically significant with either sample,
indicating that the relationship of performance rating to promotion
did not differ for managers who initially held line jobs or staff jobs.
We conducted separate logistic regression analyses for female
managers and male managers (see Table 5), and found that, as
predicted in Hypothesis 3, performance ratings were more strongly
related to promotion for women, b .43, odds ratio 1.53, 2
(1,
N 100) 13.57, p .001, than for men, b .12, odds ratio
1.13, 2
(1, N 348) 4.73, p .05. We found similar results for
the managers who were employed for the entire 2 years, with a
stronger relationship of performance ratings to promotion for
women, b .46, odds ratio 1.59, 2
(1, N 87) 13.00, p
.001, than for men, b .12, odds ratio 1.12, 2
(1, N 295)
4.09, p .05.
Discussion
These results suggest that gender bias can detrimentally affect
the performance evaluations and promotional opportunities of
upper-level women managers. The fact that our data were obtained
from organizational archives rather than research instruments, and
that they describe decisions made by senior managers who were
accountable for their ratings and judgments, makes our findings
particularly dramatic in their implications. Moreover, because the
targets of the organizational evaluations and decisions about career
advancement were upper-level managers, our results suggest that
even when women are well on the way toward breaking through
the glass ceiling, they face greater obstacles than their male
counterparts.
21.27
23.89
21.54
22.31
20.00
25.00
No Yes
Promoted
CompositePerformanceRating
Female Managers
Male Managers
Figure 2. Composite performance ratings for female managers and male managers who were promoted or not
promoted are represented.
Table 3
Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Performance Ratings of
Promoted Managers with Gender and Job Type
Step Variable Step
Full
model R2
F (df)
1 Age .15 .14
Organizational tenure .14 .14
Educationa
.09 .14
Senior management
levelb
.06 .00
Job typec
.08 .29 .05 .78 (5,71)
2 Genderd
.26* .35* .06* 4.95 (1,70)
3 Gender by job type .32 .32 .02 1.29 (1,69)
Note. n 77 promoted managers. Entries are standardized beta weights.
a
0 bachelor's degree; 1 graduate degree. b
0 no; 1 yes. c
0
staff; 1 line. d
0 female; 1 male.
* p .05.
782 LYNESS AND HEILMAN
We found that performance evaluations were affected by the
combination of the manager's gender and the type of position he or
she held. Specifically, women in line jobs were the most negatively
evaluated of all managers in our sample. Not only were
women in line jobs rated lower than men in either line jobs or staff
jobs, but they were also rated less favorably than other women
holding staff jobs. Because line management positions are likely to
be perceived as more strongly male gender-typed than staff management
positions, these results support lack-of-fit ideas, which
specify that more negatively biased evaluations of women managers
will occur when there is a greater perceived lack of fit
between job requirements and attributes of women. These data also
support our contention that although management jobs are generally
male gender-typed, especially at high levels in the organizational
hierarchy, in actual work situations superiors make differentiations
among these jobs in degree of perceived male
gender-typing.
In addition, our data showed that performance evaluations had
career consequences for the managers. Specifically we found that
the composite performance ratings were related to actual promotions
managers received during the 2-year period subsequent to the
evaluations, after controlling for age, organizational tenure, education,
and organizational level. Moreover, we found that promoted
women had received higher performance ratings than promoted
men, suggesting that women had to be regarded as more
stellar in their accomplishments than men if they were to be
promoted. In addition, we found that performance ratings had
more direct career consequences for female managers than male
managers. Our data demonstrated that women's performance ratings
were more strongly related to promotions than were men's,
indicating that the standards for promotion of men were more
flexible than the standards for promotion of women. These findings,
which support our predictions, are consistent both with the
lack-of-fit model (Heilman, 1983, 1995, 2001) and Foschi's (1992,
1996, 2000) theory about double standards for inferring competence,
with lower status individuals (i.e., women) held to stricter
standards and requiring more evidence of competence than higher
status individuals (i.e., men). They also are consistent with anecdotal
claims that women have to work harder to get to the same
place, doing more and doing it better than men in similar positions.
The findings concerning line positions have important implications
for female managers who aspire to advance in their organizations.
Women are often advised to seek line positions in order to
advance their careers. In fact, a recent survey of female executives
Table 4
Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Promotion with Performance Ratings, Gender, and Job Type
Step Variable
Step
Full model b 2
(df)b SE Odds ratio
1 Age .03 .02 .97 .02
Organizational tenure .01 .02 .99 .02
Educationa
.16 .28 1.18 .16
Senior management levelb
.54* .27 .58 .68*
Job typec
.37 .26 .69 .18 14.07 (5)*
2 Genderd
.09 .31 1.10 .73 .09 (1)
3 Performance rating 1.60** .47 4.97 4.06* 13.34 (1)***
4 Gender by performance rating 2.28 1.24 .10 3.51* 3.88 (1)*
5 Performance rating by job type .69 .95 2.00 1.52
Gender by job type .13 .70 .88 .48 .61 (2)
6 Gender by performance rating by job type 2.62 2.55 13.74 2.62 1.03 (1)
Note. N 448. Entries are unstandardized beta weights.
a
0 bachelor's degree; 1 graduate degree. b
0 no; 1 yes. c
0 staff; 1 line. d
0 female;
1 male.
 p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
Table 5
Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Promotion for Female Managers and Male Managers
Step Variable
Female managers Male managers
Step SE Odds ratio Full model b 2
(df) Step SE Odds ratio Full model b 2
(df)
1 Age .00 .05 1.00 .02 .04 .03 .96 .04
Organizational tenure .01 .04 .99 .04 .01 .02 .99 .01
Educationa
1.07 .63 2.92 1.20 .16 .32 .85 .15
Senior management levelb
.88 .59 .41 1.22 .46 .31 .63 .54
Job typec
.41 .60 .67 .23 6.85 (5) .30 .30 .74 .24 11.99 (5)*
2 Performance rating .43** .14 1.53 .43** 13.57 (1)*** .12* .06 1.13 .12* 4.73 (1)*
Note. n 100 female managers; 348 male managers. Entries are unstandardized beta weights.
a
0 bachelor's degree; 1 graduate degree. b
0 no; 1 yes. c
0 staff; 1 line.
 p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
783WHEN FIT IS FUNDAMENTAL
and (mostly male) CEOs of Fortune 500 companies found that lack
of line management experience was cited as the top barrier to
advancement for women (Wellington, Kropf, & Gerkovich, 2003).
However, our results have particularly troublesome implications
for women in upper-level line management positions. Not only
were they, along with staff women, subjected to more stringent
standards than men when promotion decisions were made, both in
terms of the level of performance required and the centrality of
their ratings in determining whether they received promotions, but
line women's performance was also evaluated more negatively
than that of all other managers. Thus, the women in line management
positions were especially vulnerable to gender-based bias.
Given the importance of line management experience for career
advancement, these findings sound a warning for women seeking
to attain the highest corporate management positions. Line positions
may be critical for advancement, but they also are rife with
potential hazards for women.
This research has important implications for organizations. Our
findings indicate that there can be gender bias in performance
evaluations of managers even when there is not a significant main
effect for gender as a predictor. Instead, the gender differences that
we observed were not universal, and only were apparent when
female managers held line jobs. This does not, however, mean that
gender bias did not occur, or that its severity was not great.
Because of the complexity of gender bias and what appears to be
its basis in perceptions of lack of fit, its occurrence depends
heavily on the nature of a position and its degree of perceived male
gender typing. Thus, if organizations only concern themselves
with aggregate ratings, they may overlook the incidence of gender
bias, or conclude that it is absent when it is not. Similarly, our
promotion findings showed that even though we did not find a
significant main effect for gender, women were held to stricter
standards than men for promotion. Such subtle indications of
gender bias could easily be overlooked by organizations unless
they conduct detailed analyses of gender differences in performance
ratings required for promotion and examine relative
strengths of relationships between performance ratings and promotions
for women and men.
Organizations should also be interested in our finding that the
relationship between performance ratings and promotions was
weaker for men than for women. This finding raises important
questions about why this relationship was weaker for men, and
what factors, besides performance, might have influenced organizational
decisions to promote men. Possible answers are provided
by other research showing that male managers made greater use
than female managers of informal means for career advancement,
such as networks with powerful sponsors or mentors (Cannings &
Montmarquette, 1991; Lyness & Thompson, 2000). We urge organizational
decision makers to ensure that important rewards,
such as promotions, are tightly linked to successful performance
for men as well as women.
When interpreting these data and drawing conclusions, care
should be taken to consider the limitations of the study. Although
our use of archival organizational data is a strength of the research,
an accompanying limitation is that we cannot rule out the possibility
that the differences in performance ratings were based on
real performance differences, not on biased assessments. The idea
that women in line positions are in fact lower performers seems
unlikely, however, given that our data show that in order to
advance, women managers generally had to perform better than
their male counterparts. Moreover, although our data presented a
unique opportunity to learn about ratings and promotion decisions
concerning upper-level men and women managers, they are from
a single organization, and that may limit generalizability of our
results. However, this limitation may be offset to some extent by
the fact that the focal managers held a wide variety of line and staff
jobs in many different business units and locations, and 177 raters
made the performance evaluations. In fact, given the diversity of
our participants and the many uncontrollable factors that might
influence actual ratings of upper-level managers, the consistency
of our findings is noteworthy. Another limitation was the somewhat
short 2-year time period for measuring promotions, suggesting
that our study provided a relatively conservative test of predictions
about promotions. Finally, more complete information
about promotion candidacies and the types of jobs involved would
have allowed us to better explore effects of gender by job type
interactions in predicting promotion decisions.
Despite the limitations of our study, the results have important
implications for how future research should be conducted about
gender bias in performance evaluations. Our study underscores the
need for future researchers to examine specific job content and
demographic composition of jobholders in order to assess perceived
gender typing of jobs. When these issues are not taken into
account, as in some prior studies about gender differences in
managers' performance evaluations, our findings provide a plausible
explanation for the lack of pro-male bias that was reported
(e.g., Tsui & Gutek, 1984). In fact, based on our results and
lack-of-fit ideas, we would not expect pro-male bias in ratings of
performance unless jobs are strongly male gender-typed. It is not
the manager's gender alone that gives rise to bias but rather the
perceived misfit of gendered attributes and job requirements. It is
important, therefore, that future research about gender differences
in performance evaluations take gender type of specific jobs into
account rather than assuming that all managerial positions are
perceived as equally male gender-typed.
Our findings also raise questions for future research. Although
there have been some prior studies about the advancement strategies
of successful women executives (e.g., Lyness & Thompson,
2000; Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998), we need to learn more
about strategies that women in strongly male gender-typed positions
have used to overcome the perceived gender incongruity with
job requirements that appear to be so detrimental to women's
career progress. Additionally, it would be interesting to explore the
apparently different processes used in going from performance
evaluations to promotion decisions for men and women managers,
and to determine whether there are instances when the standards
held for men are equally rigorous as those held for women.
The results of this study are important for those who are concerned
about the advancement of women in the workforce. Our
data strongly suggest that gender bias affects performance evaluations
of managers in actual organizational settings, and illustrate
the different consequences of performance evaluations for promotion
of women and men in managerial roles. Although the results
suggest that it is only women in line positions whose performance
was evaluated in a biased manner, the results make evident that all
women managers, whatever their jobs, were subjected to more
strict and less flexible standards than their male counterparts when
promotion decisions were made. The fact that this bias was evident
784 LYNESS AND HEILMAN
in decision making about upper-level managers implies that even
with women's steady progress up the ranks of organizations,
potential for their differential treatment persists.
References
Bartol, K. M. (1999). Gender influences on performance evaluations. In G.
Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 165­178). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bentler, P., & Wu, E. J. C. (1995). EQS for Windows user's guide (Version
6.0). Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
Blau, F. D., Ferber, M. A., & Winkler, A. E. (1998). The economics of
women, men, and work (3rd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cannings, K., & Montmarquette, C. (1991). Managerial momentum: A
simultaneous model of the career progress of male and female managers.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44, 212­228.
Catalyst. (2002). 2002 Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top
earners of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of
occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413­423.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the
evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111,
2­33.
Foschi, M. (1992). Gender and double standards for competence. In C. L.
Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 181­207).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237­254.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21­42.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 269­298). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace:
What we know and what we don't know. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 10, 3­26.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes
prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 657­674.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has
anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935­942.
Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2002). Management:
A competency-based approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Jacobs, J. A. (1992). Women's entry into management: Trends in earnings,
authority, and values among salaried managers. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, 282­301.
Krefting, L. A., Berger, P. K., & Wallace, M. J., Jr. (1978). The contribution
of sex distribution, job content, and occupational classification to
job sex typing: Two studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 181­
191.
Lyness, K. S. (2002). Finding the key to the executive suite: Challenges for
women and people of color. In R. Silzer (Ed.), The 21st century executive:
Innovative practices for building leadership at the top (pp. 229­
273). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder:
Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 86­101.
Pazy, A., & Oron, I. (2001). Sex proportion and performance evaluation
among high-ranking military officers. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22, 689­702.
Powell, G. N. (1999). Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and
future prospects. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work
(pp. 325­345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1994). Investigating the "Glass
Ceiling" phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top
management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68­86.
Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and
managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management,
28, 177­193.
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations.
Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51­88.
Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the
executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the
glass ceiling. Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 28­42.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and
requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
57, 95­100.
Schein, V. E. (1975). Relations between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 340­344.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's
progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675­688.
Schein, V. E., & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite
management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 439­447.
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think managerthink
male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17, 33­41.
Strube, M. J., & Bobko, P. (1989). Testing hypotheses about ordinal
interactions: Simulations and further comments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 247­252.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay
versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 409­429.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological
Review, 110, 403­421.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1984). A role set analysis of gender differences
in performance, affective relationships, and career success of
industrial middle managers. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 619­
635.
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general
factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for
disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 108­131.
Wellington, W., Kropf, M. B., & Gerkovich, P. R. (2003). Whaťs holding
women back? Harvard Business Review, 81(6), 18­19.
Received December 12, 2004
Revision received May 9, 2005
Accepted June 21, 2005
785WHEN FIT IS FUNDAMENTAL